The best way to create a culture of speed is for leaders to demonstrate it and communicate clearly what they expect from everyone else.
Speed cannot become part of an organization merely because the word appears in a list of corporate values. People need to understand what speed means in practice, how it will be measured and what behaviours prove that the value is present. Until the organization defines these things, one person may interpret speed as answering messages quickly, another may interpret it as working late every day, while someone else may believe that completing many tasks is evidence of fast execution.
The company must first answer a more useful question: what would we observe if speed were truly part of our culture?
We might see decisions being made within clearly defined periods. We might see problems escalated early rather than hidden until a deadline has passed. Work would be divided into smaller deliverables that can be reviewed and improved quickly. Communication would state the owner, expected result and completion date. People would use the best available tools instead of protecting outdated methods. Most importantly, the organization would produce meaningful outcomes faster, not merely generate more activity.
Speed is a value only when it becomes visible in behaviour.
Leaders set the practical pace
My co-founder and I understand that our team will learn more from how we work than from what we write in a handbook. We have to set an example through the amount of work we do, how quickly we make decisions, how we resolve obstacles and how willing we are to enter the details when the business requires it.
During the past few weeks, I have been heavily involved in designing our products. It has been a beautiful and demanding experience. Working directly with AI tools allowed me to explore ideas, produce clearer materials and accelerate parts of the design process. Some of what I created has now become useful to our engineers as they carry the work forward.
That kind of example matters. When team members see founders learning a new tool, producing useful work and improving the pace of execution, speed stops sounding like pressure imposed from above. It becomes evidence that a different pace is possible.
Leadership by example does not mean that the founder must do everybody’s work. If that becomes the normal pattern, the founder creates dependency and eventually becomes the reason the organization is slow. The purpose of entering the work is to establish the standard, understand the constraints and demonstrate a better method that the team can adopt.
A leader should be able to say, “This is the quality and pace we believe are possible, and here is evidence from our own work.”
Define speed before demanding it
If a company wants speed, it must describe it precisely enough for people to act on it. “Move faster” is not an operational instruction. It expresses dissatisfaction without explaining what should change.
Speed may mean that customer complaints receive an initial response within a defined period. It may mean that product ideas are tested with users within a week instead of being discussed for a month. It may mean that a critical decision has one accountable owner and must be made within 48 hours. It may mean that work is demonstrated every few days rather than revealed only when somebody considers it complete.
The definition should vary according to the work. A payroll incident affecting customers requires a different response time from a long-term brand project. A reversible product experiment should move faster than a decision involving regulation, security or a large amount of capital. Treating every task as equally urgent does not create speed; it destroys prioritization.
The organization should define categories of work, expected decision times and escalation rules. People need to know which decisions they can make independently, which ones require consultation and which ones must come to senior leadership. Unclear authority causes delay because employees spend time waiting for approval or protecting themselves from consequences.
Speed begins when people understand what can move without another meeting.
Clarity is the infrastructure of speed
An organization cannot move quickly when communication is unclear. Ambiguity may create immediate motion, but it usually produces rework. Someone begins with an incomplete understanding, delivers the wrong result and then has to repeat the work. The company appears busy while the actual outcome remains delayed.
Clear goals are therefore essential. People should know what is expected, why it matters, who owns it and when it is due. They should also know how the work will be judged. If several teams are involved, the dependencies must be visible so that one team does not report success while another team is unable to complete its own outcome.
Agreement is equally important. A leader may believe that an instruction was clear because it was spoken confidently, while the team heard something different. Ask the owner to explain the expected result and the next steps. This is not unnecessary repetition; it is a quick test that can prevent days of wasted work.
Written communication also helps speed. A concise written brief preserves the decision, assumptions and responsibilities after a meeting ends. It reduces the number of follow-up conversations required to reconstruct what people thought had been agreed.
When work is urgent, the temptation is to communicate less because writing and clarification appear to consume time. In reality, important work requires greater clarity precisely because the cost of moving in the wrong direction is higher.
AI has changed the reasonable standard for execution
Part of the urgency we feel comes from the rate at which artificial intelligence is developing. AI is improving rapidly, and it can render existing methods, products and even parts of a business model obsolete. A company cannot assume that the position it occupies today will remain valuable while the rest of the market learns to build and operate differently.
This does not mean adopting every new tool or attaching AI to every product. It means examining how the technology changes what should reasonably be possible. If work that once required several weeks can now be completed in days, the organization must reconsider its timelines, cost structure and talent model.
AI can assist with research, design exploration, software development, analysis, documentation and the conversion of meetings into action points. The advantage does not come merely from buying access to a tool. It comes from redesigning the workflow around the new capability.
The relevant question is not, “Does our team use AI?” It is, “What has become faster, better or less expensive because our team uses AI?”
If nothing has changed, tool adoption has not yet become operational improvement.
Leaders should experiment personally enough to understand what is possible, then help the team turn successful experiments into repeatable processes. The standard should rise with capability. When technology makes execution dramatically cheaper, old explanations for slow work become less acceptable.
Work in smaller, visible units
Speed improves when large projects are broken into smaller outcomes. A ten-week project should not remain invisible for nine weeks and then appear on the final day. The team should identify what can be demonstrated, tested or reviewed much earlier.
Small deliverables create rapid feedback. They reveal misunderstanding before it spreads across the entire project. They also make progress measurable and allow leaders to remove obstacles while there is still enough time to recover.
This is particularly important in product development. Instead of waiting to finish every feature, the team can validate the workflow, review the design, test the architecture and place a limited version before users. Each stage answers a question and reduces uncertainty.
Speed does not mean lowering the standard. It means moving the quality checks closer to the work rather than postponing all judgment until the end.
Consequences make expectations credible
Clear goals and timelines must have consequences. If an owner agrees to an outcome and repeatedly fails to deliver without a valid reason, something has to happen. The work may be reassigned, the approach may need to change, the person may require support or the role may no longer be suitable.
Without consequences, deadlines gradually become suggestions. The people who consistently deliver begin to carry the burden created by those who do not, and the organization teaches everyone that commitments are negotiable after the fact.
Consequences should not be arbitrary punishment. Leaders must first examine whether the goal was realistic, whether communication was clear, whether the owner possessed the necessary authority and whether another team created a dependency. Accountability is fair only when the conditions for execution have also been addressed.
Once these conditions are present, the company should respond decisively to repeated failure. A culture of speed cannot coexist with endless tolerance for preventable delay.
The same accountability must apply to founders and senior leaders. If leaders miss decisions, change priorities without explanation or allow their own approvals to become bottlenecks, they cannot credibly blame the rest of the company for moving slowly.
Remove waiting from the system
Much of organizational delay is not caused by the time required to do the work. It is caused by waiting. A task waits for approval, information, access, clarification or a decision from someone who does not realize that several other people are blocked.
To build speed, examine where work sits still. Track how long important items remain between stages, not only how long someone spends actively working on them. A two-hour task can take two weeks when it passes through a slow approval chain.
Leaders should regularly ask what is blocking the team and remove obstacles that only they can remove. They should also reduce unnecessary approvals and define thresholds within which employees can act independently.
The objective is not to eliminate control. Decisions involving money, security, compliance and customer trust still require appropriate checks. The objective is to place those checks where the risk justifies them and remove them where they exist merely because the organization has always operated that way.
Fast companies do not necessarily work harder at every moment. They spend less time waiting for work to become permitted.
Speed requires the ability to stop
We are not asking the team to run continuously without breaks. A culture that mistakes exhaustion for commitment may produce a burst of activity, but it will eventually lose judgment, creativity and good people.
In recent weeks, there was a weekend when I did not work at all. That break did not contradict the desire to move quickly. It supported it. Rest allows the mind and body to recover so that the next period of execution can be productive rather than merely prolonged.
I once heard an analogy that the ability of a car to move forward is connected to its ability to slow down, stop and reverse when necessary. Movement without control is not speed; it is danger.
Teams need periods for intense execution, but they also need time to reflect, have mature conversations and assess whether the direction remains correct. If people continue running after the evidence shows that the plan is wrong, speed only increases the distance travelled in the wrong direction.
Breaks should therefore be deliberate rather than accidental collapse. Leaders should protect recovery, encourage people to use leave and avoid presenting permanent emergency as a badge of honour. A strong pace must be sustainable enough to outlast the moment that created the urgency.
Quality and speed should strengthen each other
Some people respond to the demand for speed by warning that quality will suffer. That risk is real when speed means skipping thinking, testing or controls. However, slowness does not guarantee quality. A project can take a long time and still be poor.
The better objective is to shorten the distance between action and feedback. Produce something useful, test it, learn from the result and improve it. Modern tools can accelerate repetitive work, while clear standards ensure that the saved time does not become careless output.
For high-risk work, speed may mean identifying the risk early and involving the right expert immediately. For creative work, it may mean producing several options quickly before investing deeply in one. For customer service, it may mean acknowledging the problem immediately even when the full resolution requires more time.
Speed should be designed around the nature of the work rather than imposed as one reckless tempo across the company.
A culture of speed is built repeatedly
Culture forms through repeated decisions. If leaders celebrate fast, thoughtful execution, remove blockers and respond to preventable delay, people learn that speed matters. If leaders talk about urgency but allow approvals to wait, tolerate unclear goals and repeatedly change direction, the team learns that the stated value is not real.
To create a culture of speed, define the behaviours that prove it. Demonstrate those behaviours as founders and leaders. Communicate outcomes clearly, assign authority, break large projects into visible stages and use AI and other tools to raise the reasonable standard of execution. Establish fair consequences for missed commitments, while protecting the periods of rest and reflection that sustain good judgment.
Speed is not everybody looking busy. It is the organization reducing the time between recognizing an important problem and producing a valuable result.
When people understand the goal, possess the authority to act, have access to the right tools and know that commitments matter, the company no longer needs constant reminders to move faster. Speed becomes part of how the organization thinks, decides and works.
Leave a Reply